Year: 2012

Working with Unions on Reform

Eduflack accountability, AFT, teachers

Can real reforms, particularly those targeted at fundamental issues such as educator evaluation, be done in partnership with teachers, or must they be done in spite of teachers?  This has been a question asked over and over in recent years, usual with a poor answer that gets us back to the same question.

Of course teachers need to be part of the reform process.  Educators are the ones on the front lines, the ones who need to implement (with fidelity) the reforms and transformations that policymakers, parents, and educators themselves are seeking.  Excluding them from the process only likely sets us a process destined to fail.
Case in point, the New Haven Public Schools teacher evaluation system.  Here, the City of New Haven worked with the American Federation of Teachers to build a better mousetrap.  An effective evaluation model.  A system that prioritizes student performance above all.  A system that finally aligns our expectations with what is happening in the classroom.
And the system is starting to show its potential.  Nicholas Kristof at The New York Times has also taken notice, penning an interesting piece on “The New Haven Experiment.”
From Kristof:

Yet reformers like myself face a conundrum. Teachers’ unions are here to stay, and the only way to achieve systematic improvement is with their buy-in. Moreover, the United States critically needs to attract talented young people into teaching. And that’s less likely when we’re whacking teachers’ unions in ways that leave many teachers feeling insulted and demoralized.

The breakthrough experiment in New Haven offers a glimpse of an education future that is less rancorous. It’s a tribute to the savvy of Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers and as shrewd a union leader as any I’ve seen. She realized that the unions were alienating their allies, and she is trying to change the narrative.

Yes, the model itself is a remarkable step forward for public education.  But it is particularly refreshing to see NHPS, Mayor John DeStephano (New Haven is a mayoral control district), the AFT, and the New Haven Federation of Teachers working together to develop, implement, improve, and maintain.  
As Kristof notes, “It’ll take years to verify that students themselves are benefiting, but it’s striking that teachers and administrators alike seem happy with the new system.  They even say nice things about each other.  In many tough school districts, teachers are demoralized and wilted; that feels less true in New Haven.”
Indeed.  If only all reforms could work this way.


What Parents Want from Student Assessments

Eduflack accountability, assessment, high-stakes testing

It is quite clear that student assessments are quickly becoming the driving force in public education.  In state after state, we are now using student assessment to drive funding, teacher evaluation, and institutional direction.  While many may squabble on what types of assessments to take and how to apply them, there is no denying that student assessment is now ruling the day.

So what is that parents (and teachers) actually want from the learning assessments administered in our classrooms?  That is the question that the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) and Grunwald Associates asked earlier this month, and some of the responses were surprising.  All told, Grunwald Associates surveyed more than 1,000 K-12 teachers, more than 1,000 K-12 parents, and 200 district administrators.  The findings included:
* 90 percent of parents said monitoring their kids’ progress in school, knowing when to be concerned about progress, and determining preparedness for the next stage of learning was “extremely” or “very” important;
* More than eight in 10 parents (84 percent) said formative assessments are useful for instructional purposes, while only 44 percent said summative assessments were; 
* More than six in 10 teachers cited monitoring individual student performance and monitoring growth in learning over time as most important to them;
* With both parents and educators, 90 percent said it is important to measure student performance in math and English/language arts, as well as in other subjects like science, history, government and civics, economics, and technology and media literacy; and
* Only half of parents believe that summative assessment results are delivered in a timely manner.
And the big takeaways?  Teachers value formative and interim assessments far more than they do summative assessments (and that opinion is trickling down to parents).  The vast majority of teachers and parents want more testing (at least in more subjects) and want results delivered in a timely manner.  And an inordinate amount of K-12 parents seem to understand the subtleties among formative, interim, and summative assessments (or at least pretended to in distinguishing between all comers in responding to this survey.
It is valuable to see that we continue to discern value from student assessments, regardless of the form they come in.  But we also have a few key lessons learned from the NWEA/Grunwald data:
* We still aren’t seeing that data is being effectively used in classroom instruction.  Neither parents nor educators seem to believe that current data is being used to tailor and improve instruction in the classroom.  Why not?  With all the data we capture, we should be putting it into practice.  If not, this is all a fool’s errand.
* Testing turnaround time is taking too long.  Teacher and parent alike seem to believe the turnaround time from taking the test to getting the scores is just too lengthy.  Seems like the perfect opportunity to call for online, adaptive testing (whether it be formative or summative) where scores can be turned around and applied in real time.
* Parents follow the lead of their children’s educators.  On the whole, parents’ responses aligned with the teachers leading their kids’ classrooms.  Both the frustrations and benefits of teaching, from the educators’ eyes, is making it back to the parents at home.  This relationship can serve as a valuable tool.
* There seems to be a call for adding testing to the school calendar.  While some bemoaned those “horrible” “high-stakes” summative assessments, there was a strong call for more tests on the front end.  This seems to run contrary to the drumbeat that there is too much testing in the classroom, and, if used properly, can be powerful in further shaping data-driven classrooms.
While such surveys will likely have little impact on the in-developed common core standards assessments or on current state exams, they do provide some interesting context as we look at how to use tests in educator evaluation and other such measures.  Some food for thought.

How Tenure Reform Can Improve Teaching

Eduflack accountability, teachers

Does tenure reform denigrate the teaching profession?  Earlier this week, Eduflack spotlighted teacher tenure proposals offered up in Connecticut.  The significance of this is that Connecticut is a true-blue state, Dem legislature, Dem governor, with strong teachers unions.  So efforts to eliminate “life-long tenure” demand one stand up and take notice.

A valued reader, though, commented that such an approach must mean that Eduflack is anti-teacher.  Nothing could be furthest from the truth (if I were, I don’t think my teacher mother would let me come home for Christmas).  But I do believe, as Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy does, that one can be both pro-teacher and pro-reform. 
As I’ve written on these electronic pages many a time, there are few professions as demanding, as necessary, and as downright hard as teaching.  Far too many of us (Eduflack included) are just not cut out to be classroom teachers.  Those who enter the profession do not do so for the pay, the pensions, or other such considerations.  They do so to make a difference in the lives of kids, no matter how difficult it may be.
In return, they get low pay.  They get berated by parents.  They get attacked in the media.  They become the punchlines for jokes and the targets of horrible urban legends.  
Just last year, as a leader on a local school board, my district was working hard to find a way to provide raises to our educators, who had seen there salaries frozen for several previous years.  We did give them the pay increases they deserved (or at least a start to what they deserved), but along the way, I heard some choice words from constituents about how teachers don’t work full time and how they deserve low pay because they have those “huge” pensions coming to them.  To folks like that, teachers are simply a commodity, not a partner in the process.
But I digress.  If done correctly, efforts such as tenure reform can return a needed level of professionalism and respect to the teaching profession.  Yes, tenure is earned.  Yes, any teacher worth her salt is doing everything possible to encourage learning in her classroom.  So why not have that check-in every five years to ensure that a tenured teacher remains on task?  Use the process to applaud the leaders, while helping provide additional resources and supports to those who may be struggling.
Ultimately, tenure reform is a necessary component to current efforts to focus on educator quality.  We start with certification, and what is necessary to gain entrance to the classroom.  It is followed by educator evaluations and those measures necessary to determine if effective learning is happening in our classrooms.  And it is followed by a tenure process that incorporates the key tenets of that evaluation system and ensures those goals are embedded in keeping our best educators in their classrooms for their entire careers.
Certification reform is about getting the highest-quality teachers in the classroom, dispelling the myth any warm body can teach.  Educator evaluation is about demonstrating the effectiveness of our teaching force, not about targeting teachers for dismissal.  And tenure reform is about demonstrating the effectiveness of all our instructional leaders, not about taking away benefits or collective bargaining rights.
For far too many, education reform is seen as a punitive action, as an effort to assault our classrooms and attack our teachers.  And yes, in some instances, that has indeed been the case.  But it does not and should not be that way.  At its heart, education reform is about strengthening the teaching profession while improving the learning processes for all of our students.
Real reform, real school improvement, cannot happen without educators.  Our teachers and principals cannot do it half way, they can’t sit on the sidelines and hope to wait out reforms, and they certainly can’t ignore the proposed changes.  They need to be full partners in the process, and agents for improvement in the classroom.  We need to trust all educators to implement with fidelity, and we need to provide them the resources and supports to do it right.
To get there, we need to continue to build a public confidence in our educators.  We need to demonstrate that the strongest, most effective teachers are teaching “my” kids.  To do that, we need to use the continuum of certification, evaluation, and tenure.  All teachers — from first years to veterans — should be held to the highest standards.  They should be evaluated every year.  Those who need additional supports should get it.  And those who are exemplary should be rewarded for it.  
Most educators I talk to are not afraid of such measurements or such expectations.  They just ask that it be applied fairly and with a common sense that can often be lacking in public education.  Couldn’t agree more.
  

Teacher Tenure Reform in Blue

Eduflack accountability, teachers

What does tenure reform look like, particularly in a blue state with strong teachers unions?  Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy offered up a glimpse of the future of tenure today as part of his State of the State Address.

Rather than summarize, let’s read from one governor who is jumping to the top of the “ed reform guv” lists.

But we must do one more thing.

 

I’m a Democrat.  I’ve been told that I can’t, or shouldn’t, touch teacher tenure.  It’s been said by some that I won’t take on the issue because it will damage my relationship with teachers.

 

If the people in this chamber — and those watching on TV or online, or listening on the radio – if you’ve learned nothing else about me in the past 13 months, I hope you’ve learned this: I do what I say I’m going to do, and I do what I think is right for Connecticut, irrespective of the political consequences.

 

And so when I say it’s time we reform teacher tenure, I mean it. 

 

And when I say I’m committed to doing it in the right way, I mean it. 

 

Since 2009, 31 states have enacted tenure reform, including our neighboring states of New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.  It’s time for Connecticut to act.

 

For those watching or listening who don’t know what tenure is, it’s basically job security.  Let me explain.

 

Right now, if you’re a teacher and you have tenure, your performance in the classroom has to be rated “incompetent” before a dismissal process can even begin.  Even then – even if you’re rated “incompetent” – it can take more than a year to dismiss you.

 

And to earn that tenure – that job security – in today’s system basically the only thing you have to do is show up for four years.  Do that, and tenure is yours.

 

The bottom line?  Today tenure is too easy to get and too hard to take away.

 

I propose we do it a different way.  I propose we hold every teacher to a standard of excellence.

 

Under my proposal, tenure will have to be earned and re-earned.  Not earned simply by showing up for work – earned by meeting certain objective performance standards, including student performance, school performance, and parent and peer reviews.

 

And my proposal says, you should not only have to prove your effectiveness once, after just a few years in the classroom.  My proposal says that if you want to keep that tenure, you should have to continue to prove your effectiveness in the classroom as your career progresses.

 

I’m trying to be careful in explaining this tenure reform proposal because I know there are those who will deliberately mischaracterize it in order to scare teachers.  So let me be very clear: we are not talking about taking away teachers’ rights to a fair process if an objective, data-driven decision is made to remove them from the classroom.

 

I believe deeply in due process.

 

I believe just as deeply that we need to ensure that our children are being taught only by very good teachers.

 

So for those teachers who earn tenure – by proving that they are effective teachers – it’s the job of the local school district to make sure that you have every chance to continue to succeed.  That means that if you start to struggle at any point after you’ve earned tenure, the district will provide support and professional development to help get you back on track.

 

And finally, my proposal says that we need to do a better job of recognizing our great teachers.  That’s why I’m proposing to allow local school districts, if they so choose, to provide career advancement opportunities and financial incentives as a way of rewarding teachers who consistently receive high performance ratings.

 

Over the next few weeks, we’ll continue to have this discussion about tenure and I’m confident we can put in place a system that best serves our students, and their teachers.

 

Now let me be clear: in having that discussion, Connecticut will not join the states trying to demonize and antagonize their way to better results. 

 

And we won’t get drawn into making a false choice between being pro-reform or pro-teacher. 

 

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, I am both. 

 

I’m pro-teacher, as long as that doesn’t mean defending the status quo, and I’m pro-reform, as long as that isn’t simply an excuse to bash teachers. 

Game on, Connecticut!

Jobs and Ed, Ed and Jobs

Eduflack Achievement gap, National Journal, Workforce

One has to be living under a rock not to recognize that that education and jobs share a strong bond.  As we look for ways to rebuild our economy and create new jobs, it is clear that reforming our K-12 education systems, ensuring all students have access to the knowledge and skills necessary to perform in our future economy, is a non-negotiable.

Over at National Journal’s Education Experts Blog, this is the question of the week.  On those electronic pages, dear ol‘ Eduflack opines on both the need for education reform and our failures to address the skills gap we now have.
From National Journal:
It’s shameful that we can’t fill open jobs in an economy like this. And it is deplorable that one’s ability to get a strong public education depends, in large part, on race, family income, or zip code. We have no excuse for not preparing our kids, all of our kids, to meet the demands of a 21st century economy. Education is an economic development strategy – the best one that’s out there. We should be redoubling our efforts to ensure that policy makers see economic development and education as two sides of the same coin, and look to them to guide states, localities, and the nation toward meaningful reforms that will prepare all of our kids for college, career, and a productive life.
Happy reading!
 

SOTU MIA

Eduflack accountability, charter schools, early childhood education, ESEA, RTT

Earlier today, Eduflack examined the educational highlights of President Obama’s State of the Union address.  The Cliff Notes version — strong on effective teachers, keep every kid in high school until age 18, college is expensive.  But what is equally interesting is what was NOT included in the SOTU, particularly as a lead-up to the presidential campaign.  

What was missing?
Race to the Top — No mention whatsoever of the crown jewel of the Obama education reform platform.  No talk about the progress states like Delaware and others are making. No discussion of the new world order likely coming out of the first few rounds of RttT.  (But there was that veiled reference to RttT driving states to adopt the Common Core, but only the insideriest of insiders will have caught the “for less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards …”)
Early childhood education — Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars the Obama administration just awarded to the winning states in the RttT Early Learning edition, there was no mention of ECE or the importance of ensuring all kids are ready to learn when the hit kindergarten.
Principals — In the President’s focus on effective teachers, he seemed to forget that a great principal is just as important — if not more so — in improving student learning and turning a school around.  Using “educators” is the common catch-all phrase, but Obama decided to focus just on teachers.
ESEA — No call to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  No sense of urgency to act, as we have heard in previous years.  Have we officially determined this is a 2013 activity now?
Parental engagement — In one of his earlier SOTUs, Obama got all Bill Cosby on us and called for greater parental involvement in the K-12 process.  This year, nothing.  If we are serious about real reform, it can’t all be on the backs of the teachers Obama singled out.  It requires involved and committed parents, clergy, business leaders, and community voices too.
Choice — Embracing the entire public school infrastructure — traditional publics, public charters, magnets, and technicals — used to be a part of the President’s educational stump speech.  But when talking about the need for all kids to finish high school, there was no mention of ensuring all of those kids actually have access to good high schools.
Competitive Grants — Similar to the failure to mention RttT, we saw no mention of the Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund, no discussion of the impacts of recent educational budget “consolidations,” and no teaser on ARPA ED.  Are competitive grants moving to the back burner?
What else are we missing?  Anyone?  Anyone? 

“Teachers Matter”

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, assessment, AYP, Obama, teachers

Last evening, President Barack Obama delivered his State of the Union Address to Congress and the nation.  The speech focused on the four pillars the President and his team see as necessary for turning around the United States and strengthening our community and our economy.  No surprise for those following the pre-game shows, education stood as one of those four pillars.

Five paragraphs committed to education.  One pointing out our states and districts are cutting education budgets when we should be strengthening them.  One on the importance of teachers.  One on high school dropouts.  Two on higher education and how we fund a college education.  (We have a sixth if you include the President’s call to do something to help hard-working students who are not yet citizens.)
So let’s go ahead and dissect what the President offered up last evening.
“Teachers matter.”
Absolutely.  No question about it.  We cannot and should not reform our K-12 educational systems without educators.  Teachers (and I would add, principals) are the single-greatest factor in education improvement.  They need to be at the table as we work toward the improved educational offerings the President and so many other dream of.
“So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal.  Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones.”
Sign me up.  As the son of two educators, the last thing I want to do is bash a teacher (I’ll get in trouble with my mom if I do).  As I’ve said many times on this blog, teaching — particularly in this day and age — is one of the most difficult professions out there.  Most people aren’t cut out to do it, or at least do it well.  We need to make sure our precious tax dollars are being directed at recruiting, retaining, and supporting great teachers.  We should reward classroom excellence with merit pay and other acknowledgements.  But the President is also right in noting we cannot defend the status quo.  We can no longer debate whether reform is necessary.  Reform is necessary.  The discussion must now shift to how we change how we teach, not whether we change.
“In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.”
Yes, yes, yes.  Great educators know how to help virtually all kids learn.  They know to tailor their instruction based on data and other research points.  We should be encouraging that and empowering teachers to do so each and every day.  But we can’t lose sight of that last clause (and many may have missed it last night over the cheap applause line of not teaching to the test).  We must “replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.”  In our quest for a great educator in every classroom, we must also realize not everyone is cut out to teach.  We need serious educator evaluation systems that ensure everyone is evaluated, everyone is evaluated every year, and those evaluations are based primarily on student learning.  And, like it or not, student performance tests still remain the greatest measure we have for student learning.  So if we can’t get struggling educators the professional development and support necessary to excel in the classroom, we need to be prepared to transition them out of the school.       
And lastly, President Obama’s “bold” call to action to ensure every student is college and career ready.
“I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.” 
And here we have the President’s big educational swing and a miss.  This is a process goal, not an outcomes goal.  Based on AYP figures and recent on school improvement and turnaround, we know that far too many kids — particularly those from historically disadvantaged populations — are attending failing schools.  This is particularly true of secondary school students.  
Why force a student to stay in a school that has long been branded a “drop-out factory?”  Why keep a kid in school until he is 18 when he only reading at the grade level of an eight-year-old?  Why stick around for a high school diploma when it also requires massive remediation to attend a postsecondary institution?
No, the call should not be to require students to stick around a bad situation, giving us nothing more than a process win.  Instead, we should be focused on improving the outcomes of high school.  How do we demonstrate the relevance of a high school curriculum?  How do we engage kids?  How do we provide choices for a meaningful high school education?  How do we show the college and career paths that come from earning that diploma?  How do we make kids see they want to stick around, and don’t have to be mandated to do so?
At this point in time, we all realize that a high school diploma is the bare minimum to participate in our economy and our society.  For most, some form of postsecondary education is also necessary.  Until we improve the quality and direction of our high schools — and help kids see that dropping out is never a viable option — that mandatory diploma will be nothing more than a certificate of attendance.  We need to make a diploma something all kids covet … not a mandatory experience like going to the dentist.
 

“Choice Can, Should, and Must Inform”

Eduflack Achievement gap, charter schools, National Journal

It is School Choice Week!  Of course, that means yet another debate focused on whether schools of choice should play a role in our K-12 public education infrastructure.  By now, you would think such a debate would be unnecessary, yet the beat goes on.

Over at National Journal’s Education Experts Blog, the question of the week is “Is school choice a useful tool to fuel common ground on education policy?”  First up to offer a resounding “yes” to the question is dear ol’ Eduflack.
As for the continued question at hand, I opine:
It is unfortunate that, in 2012, we must continue a debate about whether all students should have access to high-quality school options. It is unfortunate that too many children don’t have the opportunity to attend public schools that can change their destinies. And it is truly unfortunate that we continue to look for excuses and justifications for denying students access schools that are proven to be effective when it comes to addressing all students’ learning needs and preparing all kids – regardless of race, family income, or zip code – for college and career.

And in answer to the question of the week:
Choice can, should, and must help inform the entire education policy agenda. Ultimately, our goal must be to provide great public schools to all students, no excuses. Public school success, regardless of the wrapper it might wear, serves as the exemplar for driving change. We should be agnostic about where solutions come from, as long as they are real, effective solutions that work for our kids. The stakes are too high for us to accept anything less.
Happy reading!